“At a London court hearing a document called a ‘Ports Circulation Sheet’ was read into the record.”

“It was prepared by Scotland Yard – in consultation with the MI5 counterintelligence agency.”

It said “(i)intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security.”

“We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people’s lives.”

“Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism.”

Miranda wasn’t charged. At least not so far. He remains threatened. He may become as much at risk as Edward Snowden.

A hearing on Miranda’s legal challenge is scheduled this week. During a preparatory session days earlier, “new details of how and why British authorities (targeted him) were made public”

“For all the lecturing it doles out to the world about press freedoms, the UK offers virtually none. They are absolutely and explicitly equating terrorism with journalism.”

On October 31, German lawmaker Hans-Christian Stroebele met with Edward Snowden. He did so in Moscow. He released a letter he wrote. In part, it said:

“I have been invited to write to you regarding your investigation of mass surveillance.”

“I believe I witnessed systemic violations of law by my government that created a moral duty to act.”

“As a result of reporting these concerns, I have faced a severe and sustained campaign of persecution that forced me from my family and home.”

“Citizens around the world as well as high officials – including in the United States – have judged the revelation of an unaccountable system of pervasive surveillance to be a public service.”

“Though the outcome of my efforts has been demonstrably positive, my government continues to treat dissent as defection, and seeks to criminalize political speech with felony charges that provide no defense.”

“(S)peaking truth is not a crime.” He thanked supporters for their “efforts in upholding the international laws that protect us all.”

Not in America or Britain. In a document read into the public record, Britain’s MI5 said:

“Our main objectives against David Miranda are to understand the nature of any material he is carrying (so as to) mitigate the risks to national security that this material poses.”

A UK Washington spokesperson had no comment. Equating good journalism with terrorism shows Britain will stop at nothing to keep government wrongdoing secret.

Doing so shows how low Britain has sunk. Its stripped off facade reveals dark side tyranny.

Britain’s Terrorism Law provides wide latitude. Its terrorism definition includes a “use or threat designed to influence the government (or international governmental organization).”

It’s “made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause.”

It does so if it “endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action (and) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.”

Most chilling is that UK security services, on their own, can decide if legitimate journalism is terrorism or its equivalent.

They can do so without publicly releasing materials allegedly able to compromise national security. They can pronounce guilt on their say alone. They can get courts to rubber-stamp their accusations.

It’s much the same in America. Government whistleblowers are threatened. They’re fraudulently charged under the long ago outdated Espionage Act.

It’s a WW I relic. It belongs in history’s dustbin. It’s unrelated to exposing government wrongdoing. Revealing it is equated with aiding the enemy.

The so-called “enemy” apparently is “we the people.” Our fundamental constitutional rights are threatened. Upholding them is what courts are supposed to do.

Not in America. Not in Britain. Terrorism or acts relating to it are what both governments say they are.

On July 30, Bradley Manning was wrongfully convicted on 20 of 22 bogus charges. He never had a chance.

He was judged guilty by accusation. He got 35 years imprisonment for acting responsibly.

It’s by far the harshest ever punishment for leaking information everyone has a right to know.

Washington wants Edward Snowden prosecuted the same way. Russia granted him political asylum.

Whether he’ll stay free remains to be seen. He’s America’s public enemy number one. Safety is his main concern.

He’s got good reason to worry. He’s a wanted man. He knows how NSA operates. It’ll try monitoring him every way possible.

Whether he’ll stay free from its tracking remains to be seen. The same is true for everyone.

America and Britain are ruthless. They’re unforgiving. They want unchallenged power. They want no one compromising it.

About the author:

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the
copyright owner.